What are your insights on charges that recent reports show settlements are being built on Arab-owned land? Thanks.
Home | What are your insights on charges that recent reports show settlements are being built on Arab-owned land? Thanks.
Please provide some context, info, which land, which suburbs, etc.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060043.htmlOriginally Posted by Mediocrates
My insight would be to ask them for a database of Arab owned land before the 1947 war, and compare the two. This won't include state-owned land, either; Arabs have no exclusive land ownership rights under 181.
I don't think many Arabs would like that much, since it would give a reason to 'relocate' the estimated 2.5 million Jordanians, Syrians, and 'refugees' illegally settled in the West Bank after the occupation. UN Resolution 181 calls for an Arab state with Jewish minorities in that region, so Arabs have no exclusive claim, and they certainly don't have Sharia Law rights over Jews settled there.
Of course, it is really a moot issue, since the West Bank Arab government denies Israel exists it's impossible for a people who don't exist to be settling there, illegal or otherwise, eh?
Before 1947 Arabs owned the bulk of the land suitable for agriculture, not only in the occupied territories but equally in Israel. And who, exept Israeli colonisers, settled illegally in the Westbank? Any links?
That's simply a blind assertion
Even if they did own it they treated it like any other land they have occupied and left it as barren waste land.. It was not until Israel took over and turned it into the fertile vibrant land that it is now and then the Arabs want it after the work has been done...
Why don't they just shut up and start to do something procuctive with the land they are living in now.
If they put half the effort into making this world better as they do into warmongering, terror, trench digging, smuggling, hatemongering, and general parasitic, hemeroid of the world actions..... the ME would be a far better place.
The Jewish population in the region increased from 11% of the population in 1922 to 30% by 1940[2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/78601.stm).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#...Ottoman_Empire
By the end of the 19th century, the Jewish population of Palestine numbered 60,000, about 15% of the land's entire population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_P...estine_to_1917
By 1930, all the land capable of being cultivated by the indigenous Palestinians with the resources available to them was already under cultivation (Frances Newton, Fifty Years in Palestine, Coldharbor, 1940, p. 253).
Sir John hope Simpson undertook a comprehensive studying of Palestinian agricultural potential in 1930. He concluded that
"it has emerged quite definitely that there is at the present time and with the present methods of Arab cultivation no margin of land available for agricultural settlements by new immigrants"
(Palestine, Report on immigration, land settlement and development, Sir John Hope Simpson, cmnd 3686, His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1930).
Subcommittee II of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, established in September 1947 issued a report in November 1947 which stated under item 63:
"The village statistics for 1945 prepared by the Palestine administration and showing the position as at 1 April 1945 furnish interesting data regarding land's ownership in Palestine. The total Arab land ownership is given in dunums (4 dunums equals approximately 1 acre), as being 12,574,774, as against a total Jewish ownership of 1,491,699. [...] The following figures are of particular interest:
CATEGORY OF CROPS OWNERSHIP
Arabs Jews (in dunums)
Citrus 135,368 139,728
Bananas 1,843 1,079
Plantations 1,052,222 94,167
Taxcable cereals (categories 9-13) 5,653,346 869,109
Taxcable cereals (categories 14-15) 823,046 67,839
Item 64 of that same report stated:
"The above statistics of population and of land ownership prove conclusively that the Arabs constitute a majority of the population of the proposed Jewisch State, and own the bulk of the land"
(Source: Doc. C74 UNSCOP Report to the UNGA, Documents on Palestine, vol. 1, pp. 165, PASSIA, December 1997)."
If you want them to be productive, give them there own land, stop destroying their houses and olive trees, end the roadblocks, etc. That's also exactly what Olmert said a few months ago.
Marc39
Read this:
Land Ownership in Palestine
If one does the maths by looking at the figures in bold, then it means that the Arabs and others owned about 21.4% of the land in 1948..What was the land ownership situation when the State of Israel -was established in 1948? According to the official data published by the outgoing British mandatory administration before the establishment of the State (Survey of Palestine, 1946), only 8.6% of the land was in fact owned by Jews, while over 70% was state land, which had passed from British to Turkish authority and now to Israel, the legal heir of the British mandate. The remaining lands - 33% belonged to Arab landowners, and 16.9% were abandoned by the Arab owners who hastened to obey the call of their leaders "to clear the way for the Arab armies which would annihilate the Jewish State". These landowners did not consider the possibility that the Jewish State would remain.
The key to the entire problem lies in that large percentage of state land, most of which was in the Negev - an unsettled area of approximately 12,557,00 dunams, or close to 50% of the entire area (26,320,000) of mandatory Palestine. These lands had never been under Arab ownership, neither during the period of British rule nor even during the preceding Turkish regime. The contention heard time and again from Arab propagandists - that 95% of the territory of Palestine had belonged to the Arabs - is, therefore, entirely without basis in fact.
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
Reffo you're wasting your time. To takeo, the Jews are illegally occupying earth.
I have lost all interest in Takeo but I am keen to help Marc
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
The New York Times visits Khaled Meshal in Damascus and offers him a microphone, Addressing U.S., Hamas Says It Has Grounded Its Rockets to Israel.
There's a slight understatement to the observation that "[h]is concilliation went only so far."
"I promise the American administration and the international community that we will be part of the solution, period," the leader, Khaled Meshal, said during a five-hour interview with The New York Times spread over two days in his home office here in the Syrian capital. Speaking in Arabic in a house heavily guarded by Syrian and Palestinian security agents, Mr. Meshal, 53, gave off an air of serene self-confidence, having been re-elected a fourth time to four-year term as the leader of the Hamas political bureau, the top position in the movement. His conciliation went only so far, however. He repeated that he would not recognize Israel, saying to fellow Arab leaders, "There is only one enemy in the region, and that is Israel."But he urged outsiders to ignore the Hamas charter, which calls for the obliteration of Israel through jihad and cites as fact the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Mr. Meshal did not offer to revoke the charter, but said it was 20 years old, adding, "We are shaped by our experiences."For years we were told to ignore the Palestinian National Charter too. That it was an anachronism. We were told to ignore what Arafat said in Arabic and only pay attention to his carefully guarded statements to the international media. Needless to say, even now the Palestinian National Charter is the guiding document of Fatah. Obviously the Hamas Charter is still operational.He explained why he was giving the interview, his first to an American news organization in a year, by saying: "To understand Hamas is to listen to its vision directly. Hamas is delighted when people want to hear from its leaders directly, not about the movement through others." That also seemed aimed at the Obama administration, which has decided to open a dialogue with Iran and Syria, but not with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognizes Israel and accepts previous Palestinian-Israeli accords.Actually I think that the reporters are overestimating their own importance. Hamas is clearly reaching out to the administration.
Why would Hamas be reaching out to the new administration?
One possibility might be that they're losing support at home (h/t Israel Matzav)In the next-door tent, bitterness against Hamas is brewing. Many Gazans do not accept the party's official view that the war was a great victory. Instead, many now blame Hamas for recklessly dragging them into a futile war that devastated their already beleaguered territory. "Where is Ismail Haniyeh?" cries a Gazan, referring to Hamas's prime minister. "Why hasn't he come here to see how we live? I lost my home. Why? For Hamas to succeed! It has destroyed Gaza. That's a fact."Getting recognized by the American government could boost their standing at home.
Or maybe they recognize that the government would be particularly receptive to superficial moderation.The current thinking in large sectors of today's sophisticated, intellectual, and opinion-maker thought in the United States [and West] is as follows: . . . The leaders of Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhoods, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea are basically reasonable, pragmatic people who you can work with.Or maybe it's some combination of the two.
But here's the part of the interview that could be considered a bad joke:On the two-state solution sought by the Americans, he said: "We are with a state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce. This includes East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees." Asked what "long-term" meant, he said 10 years. Apart from the time restriction and the refusal to accept Israel's existence, Mr. Meshal's terms approximate the Arab League peace plan and what the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas says it is seeking. Israel rejects a full return to the 1967 borders, as well as a Palestinian right of return to Israel itself.So the longest Meshal will deign to accept Israel, is for ten years. So the qualification, again, is quite an understatement.
Elder of Ziyon sums things up:
So Meshal wants to see Israel destroyed, he wants all Jews in the Middle East murdered, and he might be willing to offer a ten year pause for Israel to get destroyed demographically. The prestigious NYT, however, characterizes this as being virtually indistinguishable with the most moderate Arabs, and casts Israel as the intransigent party for not wanting to joyfully accept suicide.When I first read the article I thought much like the Elder, but the qualifications Bronner adds make me wonder. Is Bronner subtly expressing his skepticism? The article was co-reported by Taghreed El-Khodary, who lives in Gaza. Were the reporters constrained from openly expressing their doubts to protect El-Khodary?
I realized that the Times is providing a microphone to Meshal, which is distasteful. However it could be that the reporters are adding their own little distortion. Of course that won't stop the credulous from believing that Hamas has undergone a sea-change and is now willing to live in peace with israel. (h/t memeorandum)
http://soccerdad.baltiblogs.com/
Good. Your posts were tyring and debates were going in circles. I will try to limit my contributions to this forum to posting occasionally some interesting articles, such as my article about Clinton and the UN condamning demolition of Palestinian homes. It's hard to argue and debate with people who are brainwashed and don't have an open spirit.
I always knew you are not interested in sincere debate or arguments. Takeo bad (antisemitic, anti-Israel, nazi, pogrom, self-denying, etc. etc.), Arabs bad, Russians bad, EU bad, obama bad, Israel good, US good. That's the party line.
I have never been interested in discussing anything with a shill. I could have a more meaningful dialog with an ATM machine.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks